El Faro: NTSB findings so far, EL Faro's boilers needed servicing

I can see that -- after the fact -- it proved to be an unsafe route. Not focused on that.

I don't think there's a way to know if the Captain thought is was that dangerous... or even that might be a "gamble." He might have thought it was simply business as usual, albeit perhaps a bit "brisk." Don't know...

My only point is that I don't think it's fair to use everything we know now -- and the many speculations some have put forward -- to condemn a man's decision-making process as if he may have deliberately chosen poorly.

-Chris

Of course he would accept responsibility. It was his command. But the ship didn't sink because of his decision nor his chosen course. It didn't sink because of the hurricane. It sank because his vessel lost propulsion and sprang a leak at exactly the wrong time. The shipping company didn't have a problem with his chosen course. The Coast Guard didn't have a problem with his chosen course. The insurance company didn't have a problem with his chosen route. Someone please show me where any of them told the captain not to take that course. According to this thread ALL captains should refuse to leave port if there are any storms in the Atlantic or if there is any chance that your vessel could break down, because IF this happens and IF that happens and IF the other thing happens, and anything happens to the vessel it will be considered their fault.

Every delivery captain, yacht captain and commercial captain on this forum had better take special note to this. It has legal ramifications. It's also one of the biggest reasons I retired and strongly recommend that nobody enter this industry. The odds are very good that you will lose everything you own the first time your plan doesn't work out, no matter what the cause, thanks to lawyers and monday morning quarterbacks. This thread is a warning to all captains to get out of this business.

What he knows is the Captain was taking a route in the direction of a hurricane and continued that route for some period of time. What he knows is that the Company allowed the Captain to take that route. He is of the same opinion as I am that such a route was unsafe and a captain should certainly be aware that it entailed risks even if he felt he could "beat those risks."

Beyond that, as to the specifics of what happened to sink the vessel, we don't know. But we do know that had the ship stayed at port or taken a "safer" route there would in all likelihood have not been 33 deaths.

We all make decisions every day. Those decisions are influenced by many factors and job security and profits are among those factors. Sometimes it's no more than a desire to please, sometimes it's fear. People get out and drive cars in unsafe conditions, knowing there is risk. Some of the live's lost from the storm in SC were people who got out after warnings were issued. Years ago my wife and I together did something very unsafe for reasons we'd do it again. However, we did not put other's lives at risk in doing so.

The degree of risk the captain felt we can't know, but he knew there was more than on a hurricane free voyage, as did the company. They took a risk they deemed acceptable. I don't deem it to be so and I don't need to know the rest of the investigation report to say that. Very simple. If I have a choice of going in the direction of a hurricane vs. a longer route that doesn't take me in that direction or staying where I am for a few days, I don't choose to go in the direction of the hurricane unless I'm on some life saving mission.

We're not taking what we know now. We're taking what was known then. And this isn't the only captain I've questioned. I believe one or more cruise ships took to safety too late and had they lost propulsion, which cruise ships do fairly regularly, lives would have been jeopardized.

A competent captain knows that if he has 1 foot of under keel clearance at cruise speed and rolling is not an issue, he needs only to slow down while crossing the bar to obtain greater clearance and avoid a diversion.

Yes, 1/2 a mile is half a mile after all and saving two minutes is two minutes. Sand bars never moves anyway....

The point of my example is that there are factors involved which may not be apparent to the operators of small recreational boats.

It is one thing for someone here to say what they would do, it is quite another to criticize a professional mariner for not taking the same action.

BTW, a 1600 ton master is very much a "limited" lower level license. The tonnage notation, 1600 GRT, is the limit. That license might (if other standards are met) allow the holder to serve as an able bodied seaman (STCW - able seafarer) on a ship the size of El Faro.

It is one thing to speculate the cause/s of this tragedy, it is another to point a finger and claim incompetence, greed and other EMOTIVE and personal views on an incident where there is no proof as yet. Too bad for the families and friends of those accused on this popular forum!
This is not the Bounty, where evidence of culpability was evident before any real investigation was completed.
Give these professional the benefit of the doubt before slandering them and their families.

I concur 100% with this, and as an example I draw to Capt. J's statement: "I ran over a sandbar in Belize, there's 2 islands you have to do an S curve through if you take the bay from San Pedro to Belize City, I would see 0.6-0.8' under the keel at 30 knots with the tabs down in a 45' Cabo express. If I slowed down to hull speed, the boat would be hard aground, because I'd need another 1'+ of draft off of plane."

I consider that incredibly reckless. I've seen that move go to big time failure more times than I can count. You don't cruise a 45' cruiser at 30 kts. in an area where you don't know the bottom when you're that close to it. 0.6' difference can be filled by a small current or hitting a small wave. This isn't even a bay you run every day. I don't care if I touch bottom at 5 kts., but at 30 kts. you could have ripped the running gear right out of the boat (seen it), and sent any persons on board hurling forward at 30 kts. when the boat comes to a screeching halt (seen it). You're a hero because you made it, but you'd have been a big broke zero had you touched.

These are calculated risks we all take a captains, and the more experience we have / the more likely it'll work out. Captain Michael Davidson was a Master since 1988, a graduate of the Maine Maritime Academy, and worked as a ferry captain for Casco Bay Lines in Portland, Maine. He was no stranger to rough water and storms, no novice captain, and not the sort to be careless. I am not qualified to 2nd guessing his judgement. I sincerely doubt that any of those 32 very experienced seaman (most probably far more experienced than me) questioned Captain Davidson's decision, and they were right there and betting their lives on it. Captain Davidson left 2 little girls behind who will one day read everything written about this disaster. I think that any questioning or speculating or Monday morning quarterbacking should be left to any of our members who have more qualifications and more experience than Capt. Davidson. I've got 59 years on the water, 28 professional, 100 GT Master NC since 1988. I don't have this captain's qualifications.

And before anybody say it's just discussing, let me repeat: There are 2 little girls up in Maine, Capt. Davidson's daughters, who will one day be reading this thread. There is also a lawyer in Florida who has already filed suit against their deceased father and will be very happy if he can take everything away from those little girls. He's for sure reading this thread.

They're not being slandered when an opinion is expressed about the idea of running into a hurricane. That aspect does not seem inappropriate to me. Evidence they chose to run in that direction is not disputed. That's the one known issue. I am not speculating as to the reasons for that. All their other problems and causes are to be determined. I also have a personal opinion as a businessman on allowing the Captain to select that route. That's not saying the company had a history of it or the reasoning. I'm sure those in the company regret that more than any of us can imagine. People make mistakes. Running into the area of the hurricane may not be the cause of the leak or the power loss or the sinking. Whether it is or isn't doesn't change my opinion of that choice. I would not label that as incompetence or greed at this point. However, I would offer the opinion as to their exercise of risk management.

Actually this is very similar to Bounty in terms of a choice to outrun, outfox, or run into a storm. Both took on water, lost propulsion and sank. At this point in the matter of the Bounty the investigation was just starting. Actually, there is one major difference. Almost half the crew of the Bounty survived. It did take 19 months for the Bounty report. It will take at least a year for this one.

I agree this discussion has gotten out of control and wavered into all sorts of areas. However, I refer back to one simple post by K1W1.

"I am interested in the official investigation report but do tend to agree that with all the information available that it seems like a rather strange move to head directly into a hurricane no matter what vessel you are on."

We should at least have patience to wait on more facts from qualified persons before making the kind of comments that will impact people in a terrible way, just for the sake of airing an opinion. We can do that surely?

Well said NYCAP!

There are far more than just two little girls who have lost family. It's devastating to many families. However, you seem appalled that any of the other families are seeking compensation. I would find the Captain's family deserving of it as well. The suits, including any the Captain's family initiate, will be aimed at the company and intended toward the insurer. They are death suits and are filed whether or not any errors in judgement are made. Every tragedy of this type leads to lawsuits as it's part of the process of collecting from the involved insurers. If it's found no one did anything wrong, the suits for loss of life still take place. I feel very sorry for each and every child, spouse, sibling who will live with this event forever. Unfortunately, nothing we can say or do will change that. They've lost primarily in loss of family. But they've also lost in many cases financially, losing a provider. I wish that didn't require litigation, but that's just simply not the way things are. Each and every child and spouse, including the Captain's, is a victim of a tragic accident. The attorney is their advocate.

We can't spare anyone the pain of this. They'll read far worse and far more supportive than here. But worst of all is the simple fact they lost someone close. They'll read the final report, but in my opinion even if lost family members are found somehow to have some responsibility that doesn't lessen the sympathy I have for them.

Odd, that's the exact distance out of your way that you're condemning this captain for not going, and you were in far greater risk. And what you just said is exactly what a Canadian captain told me before leading across the bar just before you enter the ICW south of Georgetown, S.C. in an Eastbay before he went from about 26 kts. to zero in a couple of feet. This thread is as bad as the National Enquirer and far more damaging. Absolutely irresponsible.